• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Pharmaceutical Industry Exposed: Desire foran Ethical Resurrection
March 27, 2008 | By Dan Abshear If you have been in a doctor’s office, you’ve probably seen them. They are the ones that are unusually well dressed — considering their environment. They also are typically young, healthy, and attractive. And worst of all is that theytypically pay absolutely no attention to you, the patient, as you are not their objective. Certainly,they will avoid any conversation with you as the reasons for your visits are in opposition.They are the drug representatives… the detailers… the pharmaceutical promoters and marketersthat could care less, really, about your concerns while you are both sharing the same space at thesame time. Yet these reps will possibly take up the valuable time of the very doctor you aresuppose to see for a health issue or concern, possibly of a serious nature. So there is actually onething in common between the rep and the patient in the office: you both want to see the doctor, but for entirely different reasons.Pharmaceutical marketing tactics have become more transparent to many others over the years,and their methods have been exposed more so than they have in the past. And the public doesn’tlike what they hear and read, that is largely valid and authentic. This is why the pharmaceuticalindustry’s image has been traumatized so much during this time over the past decade or so in particular, and the trauma is deserved, considering what the industry does and has done over theyears with deliberate intent and reckless disregard in some cases, by seeming to ignore patient benefits for immediate profits.Yet there are those who are trying to change things for the better. Because pharmaceuticalmarketing to both doctors and patients is a troubling public heath issue, as they are a threat to thehealth of the community, certain advocacy groups such as  National Physician’s Allianceand Community Catalyst, among others, are addressing concerns raised by the marketing tactics of the pharma industry, and their passion and ability to organize and work as a team appearsobvious. I think very highly of their continued efforts to improve the well-being of others.In a way, such advocacy groups are in fact treating a disease, if one defines a disease as beingharmful or abnormal. Also, such groups are attempting to prevent disease by deterring theetiology of the disease itself. In this case, pharma marketers, yet there are unfortunately quite afew others.
 
In this article, I address four factors focused on by some advocacy groups and conducted by pharma companies that are trying to be fixed or eliminated by others, and where notable progresshas been made:
1. Data mining
Data mining is preventing pharma reps from having prescribing data on the doctors they see on aregular basis. This data, while provided to the reps by the employers, originates with theAmerican Medical Association. This association sells data necessary to identify prescribers andtheir habits, which is purchased from the AMA by the pharma companies. This arrangement isvery lucrative for this association. The data the reps have from this arrangement allows them toanalyze the historical prescribing habits of the doctors they are trying to influence to prescribethe drugs they aggressively promote in order to specifically create the most effective message toa particular doctor based in large part on this prescribing data. It has been stated and known thatvicious debates have occurred between pharma reps and doctors because of this.There are those that insist this data is necessary for pharma companies to improve treatmentregimens and protocols for the patents the doctor sees, and state the data is useful for educational purposes. This clearly is a fallacy. Advocacy groups and others are trying assertively to have bills passed through the legislature in order to prevent pharma companies from having this data, as itis not fair for the doctors for pharma companies to have such records of thier practicing habitswith the prescriptions they write, although the names of thier patients are fortunately notincluded. In fact, pharma’s reps have no right to possess such data, regardless of the content.Furthermore, pharma reps having this data and what they say to a doctor based on this dataremoves potentially the objectivity of the doctor and may interfere with the best treatment of the patient, prevents any authentic and credible relationship with the doctor, and it could interferewith the judgment of such a doctor.
2. Disclosure
Also the mainstream media to some degree has microscopically received and reported some levelof acknowledgment of the money given out by the pharma industry to anyone who can potentially benefit the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry, such as their lobbying force,yet most of their collaborations, remunerations, inducements, and other forms of gifting to themedical establishment remains overall a mystery to the public and the government to a degreeuntil they get caught by the government for wrongdoing because of these attempts at reciprocitywith prescribers in attempt to form symbiotic relationships with them. Intimidation and extortionare possibilities as well. Yet insiders if the pharma industry, who choose not to be deliberatelyignorant and dig deep for the truth are an exception with their drive to make others aware.Whistleblowers have been a big help with revealing and uncovering a large part of suchactivities, which is a rather courageous and brave thing for them to do, considering what theyrisk, yet regardless, for the benefit of public health, the public consistently should have a right toknow where this money goes from the pharma industry to those who are responsible for restoringtheir health. So again, legislation and bills are being contemplated that would mandate pharmacompanies to disclose what they dispense financially and for what reasons. The pharmaceuticalindustry is the most lucrative industry that exists, so they have the money, yet no one knowswhere exactly it goes. It is mysterious. And likely, if it ends up that the pharma industry reportstheir financial output, it will likely be an exercise in creative accounting.We have a right to know. Of course, the pharma industry is opposed to such obligations with thedisclosure issue, yet if it is for patient benefits, this money the pharma industry spends, as the pharma industry has repeatedly stated, the opposition should not exist.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...